Skip to content


Shakti Samanta Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)5ITD713(Mum.)
AppellantShakti Samanta
RespondentFourth Income-tax Officer
Excerpt:
.....to consider this decision; (b) that each territory specified in the table in the said rule 9a of the income-tax rules, 1962, is a unit as a whole and the statutory rule did not permit any bifurcation thereof ; (c) that if the picture is released in any part of the territory mentioned in the table, the distribution in the said territory should be treated as complete and, therefore, the tribunal has committed an error of law inasmuch as that territory 'k' mentioned in the said table is bifurcated ;
Judgment:
1. The assessee has made this miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and thereby requested the Tribunal to rectify its order dated 31-8-1982 in IT Appeal No. 1002 (Bom.) of 1981, as mistake apparent, from the record is there in view of the following : (a) that at the time of arguments, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 481 was cited, but the Tribunal, in deciding the appeal, has failed to consider this decision; (b) that each territory specified in the Table in the said Rule 9A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, is a unit as a whole and the statutory rule did not permit any bifurcation thereof ; (c) that if the picture is released in any part of the territory mentioned in the Table, the distribution in the said territory should be treated as complete and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error of law inasmuch as that territory 'K' mentioned in the said Table is bifurcated ;

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //